Ukrainian forces said Wednesday its battlefield efforts had been hampered overnight after losing some access to SpaceX’s military-grade satellite Internet service, which has become a lifeline as Kyiv weathers Moscow's attacks.

Starlink offers Internet connectivity from satellites in low-Earth orbit. Its sister service Starshield, a military version developed for the Pentagon, relies on the Starlink network and has recently been used by Ukrainian forces to strengthen its far-reaching drone strike missions and air defenses.

Serhiy Beskrestnov, a military technology expert who advises Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said speed restrictions had been imposed on the "military package" of Starshield services, leading to the “failure” of several military missions. “Our defense forces have not received any warnings about this restriction,” he said. Beskrestnov claimed the restrictions, which he said applied to devices traveling over 100 miles per hour and using Starshield, were “related to the current political situation.” He did not offer further details.

Tensions are high between the U.S. and Ukraine, as Zelensky has been vocal in his disapproval of U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to import diesel from Russia, despite previous sanctions prohibiting it. The move has also caused a split in Trump’s own party, with several Republican lawmakers urging him to reverse course. After making the deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, Trump announced an “energy cease-fire” between Russia and Ukraine—but Zelensky swiftly accused Moscow of violating any such agreement and Ukraine has, in turn, resumed strikes on Russian refineries, despite pressure from Washington.

Speaking from the U.K., Zelensky said it was a “pity” Ukrainian forces had experienced “difficulties” with Starlink services and intelligence, adding that he was surprised by the developments in Ukraine’s partnership with the U.S. In an interview on Piers Morgan Uncensored Wednesday night, Zelensky suggested he believed Starlink had been slowed down to damage him, and warned “people will die, if attacks will continue and if Starlink will not work … it’s not helpful.” He said he hoped the restriction was only a “mistake,” suggesting it was perhaps "a huge technical problem” at SpaceX.

However, in another interview, Zelensky said: "It was not a technical problem, it was the will."

SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk addressed the matter, insisting that Starlink and Starshield are different. He cited the U.S. authorities as being in control of the latter’s usage determinations.

“Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the U.S. government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the U.S. military and ultimately POTUS,” he said on X. “Starlink is a commercial service owned and controlled by SpaceX. Usage of Starlink is limited to civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”

A senior U.S. official told Axios that the Trump Administration was not involved in the alleged Starlink limitations.

TIME has reached out to the White House for comment.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian national news agency Ukrinform reported Thursday, citing sources within the Ministry of Defense, that “the work of Starshield in motion has resumed and continues.” A Ukrainian official also told Axios that Ukraine's Starlink and Starshield satellite services had been restored to full capacity.

TIME has reached out to Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense for comment.

The discourse has nonetheless raised questions about what Starshield is and how uniquely important it has become on the Ukrainian battlefield.

What is Starshield?

Starshield is a program developed by Musk’s SpaceX that draws on the satellite and launch capability behind Starlink, its commercial satellite Internet network, to support national security operations.

According to SpaceX, Starshield is designed for government use, with an initial focus on three areas: Earth observation, communications, and hosted payloads. 

“Starlink is basic interconnectivity, it's like the Internet. Starshield essentially grows out of the experience of Starlink,” Mark Hilborne, a senior lecturer in defense studies at King’s College London, tells TIME.

But the military value of that connectivity extends far beyond access to the Internet, Hilborne adds.

“In and of itself, satellite communications are not military technology, but it enables the military to communicate and amass a real-time, multi-domain picture of the battlefield, which some argue nobody else actually has at this stage,” he says.

Both systems also offer high-speed connectivity because of the satellite technology underpinning them. 

“Starlink and Starshield are low on the Earth’s orbit, and they have a very high bandwidth, so lots of information can pass through those satellites, with virtually no delay on the signal,” Hilborne says.

There are more than 10,000 satellites in the Starlink network, while Hilborne says Starshield uses “a much smaller number of satellites.” However, the exact number of satellites associated with Starshield remains unknown, with experts telling TIME that such details are closely guarded due to national security considerations.

“They keep the contracting details on these things classified,” says Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

SpaceX, on its website, says Starshield is “designed to support U.S. National Defense use cases for the Department of Defense and other government partners.”

How is Starshield different from Starlink?

While both systems rely on closely related satellite technology, they differ in the services they provide and how they are intended to be used.

“Starshield refers to military services that actually operate through Starlink,” Harrison explains, comparing the services to “two different brands of a cell phone provider, even though your phone calls are going through the same towers.”

Starshield offers additional capabilities designed for military operations, including more advanced encryption and satellite imaging, experts tell TIME.

“It's got another extra set of capabilities over and above Starlink,” Hilborne says. “They use some of the same technologies, but it would be highly encrypted, and they have different sensors that allow them to image what they call ‘Earth observation.’ That can give a radar imaging of the Earth [which] has advantages over optical pictures.”

Yet experts say the distinction between the two systems is not always clear, particularly given how closely their underlying technology and operations are connected.

How important is Starshield for Ukraine?

Starshield and the satellite communications technology underpinning it have become vital to Ukraine’s military operations against Russia.

Hilborne describes the technology as “highly critical” to Ukraine, explaining that any restrictions could cut communications with military equipment traveling above that speed, leaving operators without the information needed to guide their missions, as once that speed threshold is exceeded, the connection “suddenly cuts off and it's flying blind,” he says.

The consequences are particularly serious for Ukrainian drone operations, which rely on communications for both strikes against Russian targets and defensive missions against incoming attacks.

“It's really critical for drones, both the offensive medium range strikes, but also affects Ukraine's ability to fly defensive drones against the incoming Russian drones,” says Hilborne. 

Beyond its role in drone missions, experts say satellite communications also offer important advantages over other forms of battlefield connectivity.

Harrison notes that “the big benefit of using satellite-based communications is that you can communicate over longer distances in a variety of terrain, and it does have some jam-resistant features to overcome electronic forms of attack.”

When the U.S. and Israel launched attacks against Iran earlier this year, Tehran responded by striking energy infrastructure across the Gulf. The result was a severe shock to global energy markets that continues to this day. Less publicized at the time were its strikes on another kind of infrastructure: data centers.

Similar attacks have since taken place in Russia and Ukraine, where both sides have been trading tit-for-tat strikes on data centers. 

Experts say these attacks represent a new front in warfare, in which facilities powering the technology behind many critical industries have become military targets. 

Read more: How the Iran War Could Threaten Global Internet Access

The AI boom has led to a surge in demand for computing power, data storage and cloud services, making the data centers that provide them a crucial part of modern infrastructure. A mass of data center construction is currently underway in the U.S., and tech companies are investing hundreds of billions of dollars a year to meet AI demand. Telecommunications companies, banks, hospitals and energy suppliers all rely on them. 

“Data centers are now on the critical path for modern digital infrastructure,” Kirk Cameron, founding director of the Institute for Advanced Computing at Virginia Tech, tells TIME. “The loss of key data centers could collapse economies, disrupt public and private transportation with loss of GPS, and affect government essential services for health, emergency dispatch, and power grids.” 

Military use of AI for targeting and information processing has made data centers crucial to fighting a war. Ukraine uses AI for an array of battlefield functions such as drone targeting, battle planning, and missile analyzing Russian missile attacks. U.S. tech companies such as Palantir now work closely with Ukraine’s military to develop new AI-powered weaponry, taking advantage of the ability to immediately test their technology on the battlefield. The U.S. military also uses Palantir’s Maven system to help identify targets for strikes. 

“Data centers are competitive advantages in warfare,” Cameron says. “Knocking out capabilities means potentially crippling combat operations for an adversary. It’s also a form of economic warfare and could lead to longer-term competitive challenges for the target.”

Where have data centers been attacked? 

The first wave of attacks on data centers was carried out in March this year by Iran, when it launched strikes on two Amazon facilities in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and another in Bahrain was damaged by a nearby drone strike.

Those facilities have been mostly offline ever since; Amazon said on Sept. 15 that it had been “unable to restore access to the resources and data” hosted in those two regions.

Russian attacks on Ukrainian data centers in late September disrupted television broadcasts and internet access. Russia’s Defense Ministry said it was striking data centers because they “process and transmit intelligence data for the Ukrainian Armed Forces.” 

Ukraine’s response began on Oct. 8, and it has since carried out drone strikes on three data centers belonging to tech giant Yandex, often called Russia’s version of Google. The first site hit, in Sasovo, houses two of the three supercomputers Yandex uses to develop its AI models, Meduza reported, and the outage disrupted several companies relying on Yandex’s cloud services, including Russian Railways, MegaFon, T-Bank, and several media outlets. 

Following the first strike, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky defended the retaliation: "We always respond in kind. You all know that they are hitting and hitting our data centers; we responded to them.”

How have tech companies responded? 

The spate of attacks over the last year has already caused tech companies to rethink how and where they build data centers. 

The United Arab Emirates is reportedly revising plans for a 5-gigawatt AI data center project following the Iranian strikes. The original plan envisioned a 10-square-mile campus in Abu Dhabi, to be built in partnership with American tech companies like Oracle, Nvidia, and Cisco. Now the data centers will likely be spread out across the UAE, according to officials who spoke to Reuters.

Emily Harding, director of the Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, believes that data centers have become a new frontline in warfare—and that may require new strategies. 

“If you’re Russia and you attack a Microsoft data center, is that an attack on Ukraine? Is that an attack on Microsoft? Is that an attack on a U.S. company and, by extension, the U.S.?” she asks. 

The U.S. has largely followed a policy that attacks on American companies do not constitute an attack on the United States, but Harding says the government may need to decide on a new approach “that creates deterrence not just to protect life and health, but also data.” 

And while the threat to data centers in the U.S. may be relatively low compared to the Gulf and Ukraine or Russia, tech companies will also have to think more about the security of their facilities when building, while trying to keep pace with massive demand. 

“The knock-on effect is that the companies that own the data centers are realizing they can't protect them, and that kind of calls into question the cloud model in general,” Harding says. “They're having to make big adjustments. You could see a time in the future where Amazon starts losing business to Microsoft because Microsoft does a better job of hiding where their data centers are.”

President Donald Trump on Thursday called off plans to livestream the firing squad execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan following a wave of fierce bipartisan backlash. 

In a post on Truth Social, the President said he thought streaming the execution “might have been a strong deterrent for the World to witness how America deals with Terrorists and SCUM,” but that “many very good and well meaning people would rather not watch him die.”

The families of victims may view the execution “if they so choose,” Trump added. 

The execution remains scheduled for Dec. 3 and marks the first U.S. military firing squad execution since World War II.

Read More: Are Firing Squad Executions Seeing a Revival in the U.S.?

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on Oct. 8 that the execution of Hasan would be livestreamed, sparking fierce backlash from both sides of the aisle. 

Vice President JD Vance said earlier this month, “I don’t know that that’s actually going to happen,” when asked about the livestream. He also said that he would not watch the livestream if it took place.

House Speaker Mike Johnson also said he would not watch the execution. In an interview with CBS News earlier this month, he said he had colleagues "who have concerns,” over the livestream, one of them being “that you would create a video that would be a recruiting tool for future terrorists."  

In addition to many Democrats in Congress, several Republican lawmakers also expressed their disapproval over the plans.. 

“I absolutely support the sentence of death, but live-streaming executions is what jihadists do,” said Republican Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, in a post on X. “America is better than that.”

Republican Rep. John Curtis of Utah said that “a civilization erodes when it cultivates an appetite for executions as a form of entertainment,” in a post on X in which he urged Hegseth to “reconsider” his decision. “Secretary Hegseth’s plan to livestream the Fort Hood execution risks feeding that appetite.”

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, an outspoken GOP critic against Hegseth, called the livestream “beyond disgusting. Public executions are what oppressive dictatorships like Iran and Afghanistan do. It should not be happening in America.”

Trump had reconsidered livestreaming Hasan’s execution this week after learning that he is paralyzed from the waist down, according to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to CNN.

Polling shows a majority of Americans disapprove of livestreamed executions

A majority of Americans also opposed the livestream of Hasan’s execution. According to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll, eight in ten Americans said the execution should not be livestreamed. 

Majorities across party lines opposed the livestream, with 91% of Democrats, 83% of Independents, and 64% of Republicans, according to the poll. 

Another YouGov poll found that 69% of respondents opposed broadcasting executions to the public, including 52% of Republicans, 67% of independents, and 87% of Democrats. 

Among those who supported the death penalty, 55% opposed livestreaming executions. 

In general, support for the death penalty has declined in the U.S. According to a Gallup poll, 52% of Americans supported capital punishment for convicted murderers in 2025, down from around 80% in 1994.

What was Hasan convicted of?

Hasan, a former U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, was convicted of killing 13 people and injuring 32 in a mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas in 2009. 

He opened fire inside a processing center where soldiers were preparing for deployments overseas, killing 12 soldiers and one civilian employee. Pvt. Francheska Velez, 21, was three months pregnant when she was shot and killed by Hasan.

Hasan said that he was motivated by opposition to U.S. operations in Afghanistan and support for the Taliban. 

“I was on the wrong side but I switched sides,” Hasan said in 2013.

Southern California towns are on high alert as the first Santa Ana winds of the season are set to arrive. 

The red flag warning put out by the National Weather Service (NWS) Wednesday evening follows a relatively quiet wildfire season so far in California. Only 300,000 acres have burned since Jan. 1, compared to the over one million acres that fires have usually burned by mid-October.

Why are Santa Ana winds so dangerous?

Santa Ana winds blow in from the desert, typically between the months of September and May. The winds bring warmer temperatures and drier air to Southern California. They also greatly increase the risk of wildfires—warm winds coupled with summer drought can often make for a dangerous combination. The January 2025 fires that tore through the Pacific Palisades and Altadena were fueled by Santa Ana wind gusts that reached 100 m.p.h. 

This week’s winds will not be as strong, according to NWS predictions. But that doesn’t mean the area is in the clear. The NWS has warned that, if any fires ignite, “conditions are favorable for extreme fire behavior.”

What areas of Southern California are under fire warnings? 

The NWS has issued a red flag warning for the Los Angeles County San Gabriel Valley forecast zone that will stay in effect until Saturday evening. The most extreme conditions are expected in the Ventura and Los Angeles County valleys and mountains, particularly Santa Clarita, Thousand Oaks, and Simi Valley.

Southern California Edison is considering shutting off power to some 250,000 customers. Areas in Northern and Central California, including parts of Alameda county, Fresno County, and Napa County could also face power outages. Shutting down power helps stop downed power lines or aging infrastructure from sparking fires. 

Recent rain means that San Diego and Orange County will face less of a fire risk, though the areas should still expect to see strong winds. 

If you live in an impacted area, sign up for local emergency alerts, plan for power outages, and avoid any outdoor activities that might ignite sparks like BBQs, campfires, or improperly discarding cigarette butts. 

One Southern California town is even encouraging residents to secure hallowed decorations—the giant skeleton and inflatable pumpkins haunting front lawns. High winds can turn Halloween decorations into hazards,” the city of Pasadena said in a Facebook post. “Secure them before winds pick up.”

The European Union and Gulf Cooperation Council on Thursday announced the postponement of a joint summit set to take place in ‌Saudi Arabia next week, amid safety concerns prompted by Houthi attacks on airports in the kingdom.

Citing the “continued attempts by the terrorist Houthi militia to target the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its civilian infrastructure, which threatens the security and safety of innocent civilians,” the council said the Gulf-European Summit will be rescheduled.

The postponement comes after Yemen’s Houthi rebels on Wednesday vowed to forge ahead with the attacks on Saudi Arabia’s airports and oil facilities, just hours after striking oil giant Saudi Aramco’s headquarters.

“Operations toward Saudi depths will continue in the coming days,” said Houthi military spokesman Yahya Saree, describing the locations as “legitimate targets” and framing their attacks as a direct response to Saudi strikes on Yemen. Saudi-led forces said they had intercepted a ballistic missile fired by the Houthis towards Riyadh on Wednesday and local journalists reported hearing “loud blasts” in the Saudi capital.

The escalation follows weeks of fighting between the Iran-backed Houthis and the Saudi-backed government of Yemen, shattering a four-year informal cease-fire in the country's civil war. The conflict reignited amid the widespread fallout of the U.S.-Iran war, bringing further instability to the Gulf region. In September, the Houthis said they had captured the strategic Perim Island that sits in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a critical maritime chokepoint. They also seized other islands in a bid to tighten their grip on the Red Sea coastline. Amid fears that a stronger Houthi position along the coast could further constrain global energy supplies, Saudi-backed forces recaptured key areas around the strait in early October. The Houthis have since ramped up their focus on Saudi Arabia’s airports and energy infrastructure.

Tuesday night’s attack on Aramco’s executive offices in the eastern city of Dhahran caused a limited fire, Saudi’s Ministry of Energy confirmed. No injuries were reported. TIME has reached out to Aramco and the Saudi government’s media office for further information. Saudi authorities said several missiles and drones had been intercepted elsewhere, and that falling debris injured four people in the capital of Riyadh. Saudi Arabia launched strikes on an oil depot on the outskirts of Yemen’s capital Sanaa on Tuesday, as the tit-for-tat attacks escalated.

The Saudi strike on the oil depot appeared to be in response to the Houthis’ attack on King Khalid International Airport in ​Riyadh on Saturday that killed 13 people and left over 300 injured. A projectile hit that same airport on Sunday, killing one person, Saudi Arabia's General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) confirmed. The week before, an attack on Abha International Airport killed two people and wounded 28, said GACA.

Saudi Arabia is the world’s top purchaser of American weapons, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. However, it is struggling to defend itself against the Houthis, who are positioned to strike deep into the kingdom. The Saudis are currently investigating how their defense systems failed to stop the deadly attacks. Experts cite the vast mass of Saudi land as one reason why defensive measures may have failed. The Saudi border with Yemen stretches more than 800 miles. “Expecting a country the size of Saudi Arabia to intercept every missile is simply unrealistic. No defense can guarantee complete protection,” said Ali Shihabi, a Saudi analyst, in an online post.

Operations at King Khalid remain suspended in the wake of the attacks. Etihad Airways, Qatar Airways, and Philippine Airlines are among the carriers to announce a suspension of flights to ​Riyadh.

The U.S. embassy in Riyadh has warned Americans in the country of “potential flight cancelations, airspace closures, and travel disruptions,” stipulating that U.S. government employees now require “special authorization” to use any airport in the country.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday said the Houthis “are behaving very badly.” In a Truth Social post, he continued, “I thought they learned their lesson a year ago when we bombed the hell out of them and, at their request, stopped,” seemingly referencing the U.S. strikes between March and May last year, which came in response to the Houthis attacking vessels in the Red Sea and disrupting global trade. Weeks after the strikes began, a cease-fire between the U.S. and the Houthis was reached via Omani mediations.

On Saturday, Trump suggested that the U.S. may join Saudi strikes on the Houthis. Asked about the possibility of U.S. strikes, a senior U.S. official told TIME that Washington is “in continuous dialogue with Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Yemen Government regarding regional stability and we will always fulfill our commitments to our partners.”

As tensions in the region continue to escalate, here’s what to know about the Houthis, their history with Saudi Arabia, and why they are attacking airports.

Who are the Houthis?

The Houthis are a political and armed group in Yemen that first emerged in the 1990s and have been fighting the country’s internationally recognized government for around two decades. The group is a revivalist movement for Zaidism, a branch of Shi‘ite Islam. The Zaidi muslim population in the country represents around 35% of the Yemeni population.

The Houthi movement was largely born from a transformation of the Believing Youth Forum (BYF), according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The group became known as the Houthis in honor of their founder and leader, Hussein al-Houthi. Before he was killed by Yemeni forces in 2004, al-Houthi had developed the group into a more militarized movement. The group is now led by his brother, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi.

Civil war broke out in 2014 after the Houthis seized Sanaa, forcing the government to flee to the southern city of Aden. Since then, the group has been engaged in fighting against a Saudi-led coalition supporting Yemen’s government. The Houthis currently have control of most of the country’s west, including Sanaa. 

Experts compare the Houthis to authoritarian regimes on account of the social restrictions imposed in areas under the group’s control and alleged human rights abuses. 

“The Houthis are dominated with very ideological and radical ideas, like a Zaidi ISIS. They have similarities also with the Taliban in terms of social control," says Mahmoud Shehrah, a Yemeni political analyst at London-based think tank Chatham House. 

How are the Houthi rebels linked to Iran?

The Houthis hold strong ties to Iran, often taking action in line with Tehran’s objectives. 

“Since 2009, Iran [has] started to speed up weapons supplies, training, but also a lot of funding to the Houthis,” says Farea Al-Muslimi, a Yemeni research fellow at Chatham House, noting that links between the two began as early as the 1990s.

The Houthis are often considered part of Iran’s proxy network, known as the “Axis of Resistance,” which also includes Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Islamic Resistance network in Iraq, and previously the Assad regime in Syria, until its collapse in December 2024.

In response to the Israel-Hamas war, the Yemeni militia launched several strikes on shipping vessels in the Red Sea, disrupting global trade in late 2023 and the early months of 2024. The U.S. and U.K. joined forces in January 2024 for a series of strikes on Houthi targets across Yemen in retaliation for the attacks on unarmed vessels. The U.S. carried out an additional campaign against Houthi targets later that year.

The Houthis entered the Iran war in March by firing a barrage of ballistic missiles at southern Israel. In the months since, the group’s advances along the Red Sea are widely considered to serve the interests of Iran. A Houthi blockade in the region against Saudi Arabia was declared in July, and several vessels have been attacked. The threat that the Houthis could bring another critical maritime chokepoint to a standstill, much like Iran has done with the Strait of Hormuz, could give Tehran significant leverage in its negotiations with Washington.

However, experts say it’s not entirely accurate to call the Houthis a direct proxy.

"The Houthis are one of the more independent regional allies of Iran in the Middle East. They have their own independent interests, even though their interests converge regionally and globally,” says Fawaz Gerges, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics.

Even so, the Houthis have become increasingly vital for Iran. “With the fall of Assad, with the weakening of Hezbollah, the Houthis became the most important regional ally Iran has,” says Al Muslimi, pointing specifically toward the Houthis' ability to disrupt trade in the Red Sea.

What do the Houthis want?

The group’s goals have changed over time, as regional developments have unfolded, experts note.

“The Houthi's ultimate goal is to be a regional power,” says Al-Muslimi. With regard to the reignited civil war, the Houthis ultimately want an end to what they call a Saudi blockade of ports and airports in their territory.

“The Houthis want to have the skies and the ports of the country open for trade, for goods and services,” says Gerges. “They want money to flow into the coffers of the Houthis.”

The civil war has had a disastrous effect on Yemen, with nearly half of the population in government-controlled areas facing high levels of acute food insecurity, according to the United Nations. “The current situation is very dire for the Yemeni population, but also for the ability of the Houthis to rule Yemen effectively,” says Gerges.

“The Houthis want to consolidate rule and regime. They want to be recognized as the legitimate government in Sanaa, as opposed to being considered a non-state actor,” he adds.

When did the Houthis and Saudi Arabia begin fighting again?

A cease-fire brokered by the United Nations in April 2022 largely held for over four years, before collapsing in July. The Houthis claimed Saudi Arabia had launched strikes on Sanaa Airport, targeting a Houthi delegation returning from Iran. In a move they framed as retaliatory, the Houthi rebels launched ballistic missiles toward Saudi Arabia. 

“The Houthis saw this as a golden opportunity to change the balance of power against Saudi Arabia and Yemen itself and launch a lightning offensive,” says Gerges.

Following further strikes on Houthi targets later that month, the militia group began striking oil refineries in Saudi Arabia, belonging to the state-owned petroleum company Aramco.

In September, strikes on oil refineries and other related facilities ramped up, and Saudi Arabia’s airports became a target.

Why are the Houthis attacking Saudi airports?

Prior to the 2022 cease-fire, attacks on airports were largely considered a signature move of the Houthis.

In a highly-publicized attack, the group struck Abha International Airport in June 2019, injuring at least 26 people, Saudi authorities said. The strike earned international condemnation and was deemed a possible war crime by Human Rights Watch.

Now, after fatal strikes on ​Riyadh’s King Khalid International Airport, the Houthis have threatened to keep targeting airports. The main motivation behind these attacks is the economic and geopolitical pressure they apply to Saudi Arabia, experts say.

“The Houthis want to put severe pressure on the Saudi Arabia economy, airport infrastructure, and security,” says Shehrah. “They want to squeeze Saudi Arabia's arms to push them to a political settlement.”

The unrest threatens to have a strong economic and political impact on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman's governance. The disruption is “costly” to him, says Al-Muslimi, who notes that Bin Salman is eager for Saudi Arabia to be seen as a “safe harbor.” 

The financial and reputational damage of these strikes has also put the Saudi public on the frontline of the conflict. It’s a “shock, because it's the first time in years that such major attacks have targeted deep inside Saudi Arabia,” says Gerges.

“The Houthis are trying to exert tremendous pressure on the leaders of Saudi Arabia to force them to accept conditions for lifting the blockade on Yemen and recognizing their legitimacy,” he continues. “Although, I doubt that the Saudi leadership will concede to Houthi demands… this would be seen as a surrender and humiliation."

The U.S. Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will take up a case to decide whether a watchdog organization can obtain information to help establish whether the now-defunct Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is subject to a federal public records law.

It’s the latest update on a lawsuit filed by a nonprofit called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) that argues DOGE, the initiative that was spearheaded by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

The Trump Administration has argued that FOIA does not apply to DOGE because it was not a federal agency—it was a presidential advisory body.

Signed into law in 1966 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, FOIA grants “the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency,” according to the federal government’s website. Johnson said at the time that he hoped the government would, in upholding the law, weigh national security, individual privacy, confidential government deliberations, and the benefit of a well-informed constituency.

“The founding principle of FOIA is that it’s crucial in a democracy to have an informed citizenry,” says Sara Creighton, an associate professor at Georgetown Law and the former Deputy Chief Counsel at American Oversight, a government transparency nonprofit. “The whole idea is that we need an informed voting public.”

Justices have agreed to hear arguments over whether, and to what extent, discovery can proceed for CREW v. DOGE Service. This phase of the legal process allows opposing parties to collect information, including records and depositions, with which to make their cases.

Experts say this decision will not only affect the pending lawsuit, but may also have ramifications for the future of government transparency.

How did the DOGE records case reach the Supreme Court?

CREW filed an FOIA request seeking expedited processing for information about DOGE on Jan. 24, 2025, seeking insights about its structure and communications with other agencies. When it didn’t receive the documents it requested, the organization sued.

“The law is clear about how government records should be preserved so that, when the public requests them, they are easily and readily accessible. If the administration valued transparency, following records laws would be a priority,” CREW President Noah Bookbinder said in a statement announcing the lawsuit on Feb. 20, 2025. “Instead, US DOGE Service and OMB are acting as though the law does not apply to them. It does.”

“The fight ultimately in the DOGE case, and what CREW was hoping to test with its litigation, was whether DOGE [is] subject to FOIA,” says Ryan Mulvey, a senior policy counsel at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

On April 15, 2025, Judge Christopher Cooper ruled on behalf of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the case could proceed to discovery. The Department of Justice, however, filed an emergency appeal in May 2025 asking the Supreme Court to intervene. The Supreme Court paused the discovery orders on May 23, 2025. On June 6, 2025, it directed the appeals court to narrow the requests, finding that those concerning DOGE’s recommendations and whether agencies followed them were “not appropriately tailored.”

CREW then pared back its requests for discovery, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld them. The Trump Administration again filed a request to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court was not adhering to the previous ruling by granting “wide-ranging and intrusive discovery.”

In response, the Supreme Court agreed this week to take up the question of whether the case can proceed to discovery. It’s unclear at this point when oral arguments would begin, but a ruling is expected by the end of term in late June or early July 2027.

What could the Supreme Court’s DOGE ruling mean for public access?

The Supreme Court’s ruling will determine if CREW can access the information that could help it make its case that DOGE acted as a federal authority that is subject to FOIA, according to Creighton. If not, the nonprofit may have difficulty pursuing its argument. 

“Because so much about how DOGE operated … was not publicly explained, discovery is the only way to unearth key facts about DOGE’s operations and exercises of authority,” says Margaret Kwoka, the Frank R. Strong Chair in Law at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, who joined a brief supporting CREW as an outside legal expert. “Those details will illuminate whether it is in fact exercising independent authority or whether it is acting as an advisor to the President.”

The outcome of the case could have implications beyond the current Administration, Creighton says.

“Whether an entity is subject to FOIA really determines how much information the public gets to know about it, and whether [entities] have any obligation to disclose their documents to the public,” Creighton says. 

The current issue before the Supreme Court pertains to discovery, but Creighton warns that if the Supreme Court ultimately rules that DOGE is not subject to FOIA, that could potentially “open the door for future presidents to create entities inside the Executive Office of the President that do significant work—even potentially work relating to the work of agencies who are usually subject to FOIA—but allow that work to be outside the scope of FOIA.”

CREW did not respond to TIME’s request for comment, but it has previously said that government transparency is at stake.

“The lower courts have uniformly ruled that CREW is entitled to discovery in this case to help the court determine whether DOGE wields the type of authority that would make it subject to FOIA,” CREW’s chief counsel, Nikhel Sus, told POLITICO in a statement on Tuesday. “We will continue to pursue transparency for the American people, who deserve to know the details of the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally remake the federal government.”

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, meanwhile, argued in his filing to the Supreme Court that the appeals court ruling “intrudes into the autonomy and confidentiality of presidential advisors and augurs time-consuming and burdensome discovery litigation.” 

He further claimed that the lower court decision “threatens to burden future presidential administrations” with similar legal cases.

The White House referred TIME to the Department of Justice, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

What other records lawsuits has the Trump Administration faced?

The DOGE dispute is among several legal battles over access to, and preservation of, government records under the Trump Administration.

In 2025, American Oversight filed a lawsuit asking the court to order multiple national security officials to preserve official communications that were exchanged on the encrypted messaging app Signal. The request was filed after it came to light that the officials were exchanging messages regarding planned military strikes in Yemen. The case is still ongoing.

In April, the same group, along with the American Historical Association, sued the Trump Administration over a legal opinion released by the Department of Justice that claimed the Presidential Records Act—which stipulates that presidential records be preserved and transferred to the National Archives when the President leaves office—is unconstitutional. That case is also ongoing.

While those cases remain ongoing, American Oversight has secured a win in another records dispute. In August, a federal judge struck down an Energy Department policy that would have permitted it to close pending FOIA requests filed earlier than Oct. 1, 2024, unless requesters reaffirmed their interest within 30 days. The court sided with the watchdog group.